Enough Art Already?

Terry Teachout has an interesting discussion about a question posed to him by a reader. I'm paraphrasing here, but: Do we have enough art already? Shouldn't I just be content to "consume" art (music, plays, paintings, etc.) already complete, and not bother with any newly created works?

It's an intersting discussion of time (and how to spend it), and what is "new" art.

Remember that no one, not even the wealthiest of connoisseurs, has an unlimited amount of time to spend on art. However wisely or unwisely we allocate them, there are only twenty-four hours in a day. Sooner or later, we have to choose.

Teachout argues that all theater is "new":

When it comes to theater, of course, the choice is to some extent made for me. In a sense, every theatrical production is “new,” even a revival of Hamlet.

In the end, he argues, new is good:

Aside from everything else, there's no substitute for the galvanizing experience of being present at the creation of a new work of art that might possibly end up being great. Nothing is so thrilling as making up your own mind instead of waiting for posterity to do it for you. Just as important, though, taking a chance on new art is the price we pay for a healthy culture, one in which talented artists don't have to wait on tables. Those who decline to pay it are the cultural equivalent of rentiers, aesthetic remittance men who live off the accumulated capital of the past without contributing anything of their own.

In the same vein, I believe it was Ringo Starr who once said that eventually we would run out of tunes because there were, after all, only 88 keys on a piano, and soon all the various combinations would be tried. (Searched and searched but couldn't find the quote.)